Today, the French people elected Mr. Nicolas Sarcozy, a conservative, to be a new French president, for the next five years. He got about 53% of the votes, and Ms. Ségolène Royal, a socialist candidate, got 47% of the votes.

Whenever a new elections bring some change in the world’s key countries, which France undoubtedly is, for the last several years, I have an impression that no good results are to be expected for the world. Looks like the new generation of conservative politicians are reviving national sentiments, which they like to call “traditional values”. In Europe, conservatives usually bring closing of the country for the immigrants, decline in European integration, neoconservative policies with a bit of racial flavour.

Nicolas Sarcozy says he is bringing the “radical change” to France; he already announced revival of a good relations with the USA, and specifically president Bush, neo-liberal concept of economy, hostility towards immigrants, and establishment of the “ministry” for national identity. Such ideas always make me wondering how human brain needs to function in order to figure out this. How can someone propose establishment of the ministry for national identity? What does it mean, and how the results of this ministry will be measured? Probably by the quality of “frenchness” in the blood of the average French. Maybe they even manage to establish a good balance in blood, which will measure the perfect French.

Every time some conservative wins the elections, I get this strange feeling the world is moving in the wrong direction. This direction emphasizes some metaphysical entities like nation, ethnicity, “traditional values”, traditional family (where, of course, men should do business and bring money, while women should probably stick their noses in the kitchen and next to the children). This set of policies is always about some “values” which several people define for the good of millions. With due respect to these “concerned-for-national-survival” politicians, I think that an individual is capable enough to determine what is in his/hers best interest. No state policy should have anything to do with that. If you ask me, I think this approach is offensive for an individual, outrageous for the responsible policy, and bottom line, dangerous for human rights. The mere fact that someone thinks that he got the mandate from the people in order to “preserve” national identity, and even to establish a ministry for that, means that something is really put upside-down, because the state is put above the interest of an individual. This is an approach that really underestimates the intelligence of the voters. I am always sad when I see that voters accept this, but it is now becoming a tendency, and we all need to think about how to reverse it.

What did Sarcozy said about his priorities: “I would endeavour, if the French put their confidence in me, to be a president of the republic who is committed first of all to results. I want results. No more talk, no more declarations of virtual rights but promises to the French of rights that will become the reality: Results.” So, he wants results, no matter what. This is an original recipe from Machiavilli’s cuisine. And he is against, as he calls them, virtual rights. How nice. To me, this basically means that he is prepared to violate individual’s rights, if this will lead to his results. Results, of course, he will define. All means are legitimate, if the ends are achieved. Ends, of course, he will define.

I will not hide that I am truly sad that that Ms. Ségolène Royal lost the elections. Because she promoted human values and the society oriented towards individuals, and their true life: “I want to be the president of the republic who’s going to make a France where aggression and violence are in retreat, who’s going to make a France that will win the battle against unemployment and a high cost of living, who will also enable inequalities to recede, because I believe all these kinds of insecurity in daily life – social insecurity – call for new rules of the game, call for a new political system, call basically for more effective politicians than those of the last five years and, no doubt, beyond.” In my opinion, this is something that reflects proper people’s needs, in difference with  some uncertain chat about identity and results no one understands. No one, but Sarcozy.

Today, we are all Ségolène, and we all lost a battle.

All in all, a true celebration will take place in White House tonight. Mr. Bush, open the champagne, looks like you got a new puppy.

Nicolas, please make me eat these words!

I decided to put this post in the “International law” category, but also in the “World politics”, because of my sincere opinion that this is far from being simply matter for international lawyers to discuss, but that this is for a long time a political issue par excellence. Yesterday, an US federal Court of Appeals decided that the court lacks jurisdiction to hear any habeas corpus appeal by any of the Guantanamo detainees.

When I read a decision in it’s integral version, I will give my “precious legalistic opinion” on this, but for the time being, I want to share that in my opinion, this is just another outrageous decision that goes against fundamental civilized values American society is built on.

Let me remind that the habeas corpus falls under the very first set of rights people asked their governments to secure, and that it is based on the simple paradigm that no state body may hold anyone arbitrary, without giving that person a right at least to challenge lawfulness of his/hers detention. These rights today fall under hard core rights of international law of human rights, the rights which can not be denied under any circumstances.

The situation is this: American Congress enacted a law (Military Commissions Act, 2006), where it is stated that federal courts can not review habeas corpus claims by prisoners held outside US territory. Technically, Guantanamo base is outside US territory, but in practise, this base is under effective control of the US army. Since it is under effective control of the US army, normally, prisoners could not challenge lawfulness of their detention in front of any court but the US one. With this law, however, US Congress has removed this possibility, because they are prisoners “held outside the US as enemy combatants”. The concept of “enemy combatants” is a separate issue which deserves special attention. In the outcome, the prisoners in Guantamo are denied for not just “proper”, but “any” access to justice. To put in more clear view, Americans can do whatever they want with these detainees, there is no civil court they can complain.

Where they can complain? Well, those are famous military commissions. The trouble with these is that the US Supreme Court twice ruled that prisoners can file a habeas corpus petitions challenging grounds of their detention. After both rulings, the Congress changed the law, again imposing limitations to this possibility.

What else can be said on this. Well, the most important thing actually: Nothing of this would not be so strange and outrageous, if “the greatest of all democracies in this world”, “the country – role model of democratic world”, is not the cause of all these human rights violations. Let me remind that this is not just an issue of denial of justice or arbitrary detention, but also an issue of torture and other ill-treatment. Let me refer to the Amnesty report: “One only has to imagine what would happen if another government captured a US citizen and held him indefinitely for years on end while denying him this basic right to challenge his detention.”

All in all, this issue will go to the Supreme Court once more. I am sure that no one will know at the end what was this all about. Another possibility is that American authorities will express regrets 50 years after, like they did in regard to American citizens with Japanese origin during the World War II, who were held in an American version of concentration camps (just because they were with Japanese origin), on the grounds that they were considered a threat to national security.

In the mean time, some people will be ceased for 10 or more years of their lives. Well, what the hell: al Qaeda needed to hit those towers… Refer to them for Guantanamo.

In 1992, during the armed conflict in Bosnia, corridor between the two parts of the territory of the Bosnian Serb Republic was cut by enemy forces. The hospital in Banjaluka, the capital of Serbian Republic, had a shortage of oxygen for incubators. The shipment of the oxygen was sent from Belgrade, the capital of Serbia, but could not reach the destination. Enemy forces did not allow the transport of the shipment through the corridor, with explanation they wanted to prevent weapons to be smuggled along with the shipment. Because of the same doubts, the UN peace forces did not allow the transport of the shipment. 12 babies died in the hospital that horrible night. One baby, Sladjana, did survive…

A year ago, more than 13 years after, Sladjana passed on. During these 13 years, she had numerous health problems because of the lack of oxygen in the first hours of her life. 14 months before she died, she was diagnosed to have cancer of bones.

One poem was written when this terrible event happened 13 years ago:

“I don’t prey for myself, the way it is predestined, so it will be.
But tell me, mister, do these tears hurt you, do you sleep?
Born in the same day,
The same day Your sharp sword ruled.
And I wonder, Your Highness,
Which God has such power to forgive You?
Twelve stars have fallen from the sky
To Your palm, honorable mister.
Twelve stars have fallen from the sky…
What were they guilt for, honorable mister?
What were they guilt for?”

I don’t want to discuss here who is guilty and who is innocent. Older and smarter than me said how no innocent side ever existed in any war. I don’t want to assume whether the worst were those who didn’t allow the shipment to reach the hospital, or those who tried to smuggle the weapons (if they did so). The thirteenth star reminded me once more how horrible, how unreasonable, how inconceivable every war is. It is indeed denial of any logic known to human brain. Those who least deserve the suffering, suffer the most, and those who mostly deserve disdain are glorified as heroes. If you look more carefully in the world history, every hero for one nation is actually a criminal and murderer for the other. All heroes are necessary a negative ones. I preach here for the world without heroes. The world of heroes is the world of war.

Stop the war.

New York is a great city. Capital of the world. Every nation and every language have at least one representative here. All of them live in peace and harmony. New York is a project which proofs that it is possible. Cosmopolitan spirit? Yes, for sure! Life here is completely different from the way of life I used to see in Europe. I used to think how my life would probably be completely different if I was living and studied here. One could say that the sole fact that I was thinking about that, might be a sign that I regret I didn’t. Those who know me would probably confirm that I do regret. If you ask me, well, I am not sure.

While I was there, for several times I watched a basketball match between Columbia and Harvard. This is what made me thinking about what would be, if the tings went in the opposite direction. If only I didn’t enroll university in Serbia… It is funny to think at least for a moment what would be your life like, if you had lived or just educated in USA. The whole atmosphere was exactly like from Hollywood movies. Or Beverly Hills 90210. And tell me after this that it is a fantasy. Americans really export their culture without much lies. Seeing this entire people cheering for Columbia, seeing cheerleader girls, to hear American anthem and the way they all respect it, the way they are not ashamed to take part in embarrassing activities, like a girl trying to hit the score in the break time, and has 30 seconds to do so, and scores totally none. I mean, how is she not embarrassed to do that in front of 1,000 people there? The funny thing is that nobody is laughing at her! She was brave and she tried: “Next time it will be better! Give great applause for Jenny!!!” – official speaker called the audience. And she deserves respect. Funny thing was observing mothers supporting their sons, cheering and shouting loudly. One mother sitting next to us even knew the names of all guys from the Columbia team. One other mom behind us said, well, at least 50 times, or whenever Columbia Lions go to attack: “Don’t rush Lions! Settle up! Take it easy!!!” I was fascinated. Who told her that? Could you believe that? She was really proud she knew to say that. I think this is the way women here show how they are equal with men. This is the top of their emancipation. These women vote for the Republicans, I am sure.

It was however remarkable feeling to be there. You could learn a lot about American way of life. These people appreciate success very much. But they are not bothered if you don’t succeed immediately. Nobody expects that from you, because this is always a process. The society is prepared to support you in your path to success. Nobody will laugh at you because you want something you can not have at the moment. In Serbian terms speaking, “it was not for the girl” to go to try to hit the score. Nothing similar would happen in Serbia. At least, everybody would know that girl is actually probably just making fun, and everybody would loudly laugh to her failure. Here, this is not the case. If you really want it girl, you should go and try it again! This was the message. Be persistent in your efforts and you will score. Society is here not to humiliate you, but to support you. The society here is established in a way to appreciate success more than anything. Only successful people are pushing society towards the progress. Back home in Serbia, people are usually malicious when someone has a big success. Someone, meaning individual. Collective success is something different. If you are member of the team, which represents the collective, which is considered as emanation of “us”, you can have success. It is permissible. Deserves for this success belongs to the team, and the team is “we”. Not “he” or “she”. Any individual success shows that person is something extraordinary, some weird person, some lunatic! To be individual and successful, it is not the value over there, and people would usually try to undermine it. Not because they are malicious or jealous, but just because they consider this attitude as very intellectual and critical, so elitist. That is why you will see Serbia winning the gold in basketball, volleyball, water polo, but you will not see Serbs winning in athletics, gymnastics, or swimming. We over there do not appreciate that success much. That success is not “our” success, that success is only his/hers success. So, why would we appreciate that? And without good individuals, you will not have a good society. In USA, everything is directed to the individual success. I mentioned mother on that game, who knew the names of every team member. It is important to know who is who, and who has achieved what. This is the only way to determine and evaluate each team members’ responsibility. Team work is appreciated highly, but without good individuals, you can not have a good team. It is equally important to have good individuals, as well as individuals to fit into the team. Only if you organize team like that, everybody will know perfectly what is whose responsibility, and nobody will be in possibility to hide behind the team failure, as well as to take only for him/herself a team success.

In USA, the team is consisted of five players. In Serbia, five players are part of the team. Difference is too huge.